If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

If this sounds like a shot on the defense it isn't meant to be. Everyone knows or should know by now that our secondary doesn't come up with the interceptions as they should. I've seen many passes go thru the hands of our corners, corners just muffing interceptions or imagine it how you like. I've also heard if these guys could catch they would be receivers. Having said all that, why can't these guys catch a ball that hits them in the hands ?
They have running backs that fumble the ball get punished by holding the ball all week after a bad game, does that really help them and if so, why not have the corners do the same ?

Foote is not a great player. But, he played pretty well yesterday. Our offense played perhaps the worst game I've ever seen (and I have seen every Steeler game for 34 years).

Cooky on the radio pretty much said the same thing. This is the worse or second worse Steeler offense production or lack of production that he has ever seen. Him and Vinny couldn't describe it and this coming from two guys paid to do well with the english language.

Your comment shows the disconnect of Steelers fans on this topic. You see this as a monster game (6 tackles and 1 sack), and some like myself see it as a descent game. Hardly a monster game.

I wouldn't call it a Monster Game but "decent" leaves a lot to be desired. If you were set up on a blind date and you asked how she looked and ur buddy says "she's decent" ...i wouldn't go on that date. Larry Foote had a GOOD, if not GREAT game.

...and as for the original poster. ur post sucks this week just like it did last week

I wouldn't call it a Monster Game but "decent" leaves a lot to be desired. If you were set up on a blind date and you asked how she looked and ur buddy says "she's decent" ...i wouldn't go on that date. Larry Foote had a GOOD, if not GREAT game.

...and as for the original poster. ur post sucks this week just like it did last week

Well let's think about this. Foote came untouched on his sacks. This was a missed block. If someone had done his job that would mean Foote would have had 5 tackles and nothing else. Again...to me..that's descent. Hardly a monster game. But after a win (just like after a loss), fans tend to see things a little skewed. Heck there are people today praising Charlie Batch and totally ignoring the fact that he really is a poor QB.

Well let's think about this. Foote came untouched on his sacks. This was a missed block. If someone had done his job that would mean Foote would have had 5 tackles and nothing else. Again...to me..that's descent. Hardly a monster game. But after a win (just like after a loss), fans tend to see things a little skewed. Heck there are people today praising Charlie Batch and totally ignoring the fact that he really is a poor QB.

So Foote came untouched on his sack...at least he made the play. Many on this board champion LaMarr Woodley, but it's the same with him--most of the times he gets a sack, he's not blocked. Again, Foote is not a great player...I'd love to get an "upgrade" in the draft...but Foote is far from our greatest liability. I wouldn't say he had a "monster game," but he was good enough to help us win today.

Likewise, we should seek to replace Batch if we can...but give him some props for today's performance. It's far from easy to go into Baltimore and engineer a win. Poor QB? Not today.

BTW, if you want to pick on a defensive player to complain about, how about Fat Hampton? If Tomlin had the same kind of performance "standard" for his defensive players as he does for his offensive guys, Casey would be on the bench. I think quite a few 60-year olds can move faster than he can.